The World Affairs Board is the premier forum for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include military and defense developments, international terrorism, insurgency & COIN doctrine, international security and policing, weapons proliferation, and military technological development.

Our membership includes many from military, defense, academic, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?

It is said to be assured of getting one terms work done as US President that at least two terms are required. Otherwise whatever was done in just one term will be reversed by the next administration.

So the topic here is Trump loses his election bid and given the competition so far has a left of centre complexion then what will it mean for America's relations with the world ?

I'm assuming but don't know.

Relations with Russia & China will improve. What the implication there will be needs to to understood by other countries that either have a good or bad relation with Russia or China.

Anything else ?

First off, the US has already moved left, and the Democratic party is trying to catch up. The Dem establishment doesn't want to move left though because that's threatening a break away from the American way. So the Dems' final candidate for pres is going to have to lie like hell and pretend to support social change a la Bernie.

that which used to be the tradional left is no longer. Hillary would have had to be considered the 'left', as opposed to the Repubs but Hillary would have been totally in sync with the US agenda of the past.

To begin to answer your question: A US move to the left in their domestic politics doesn't say anything about the US relations with Russia and China. Or, if you don't agree then make a suggestion on how it could?

You have to be thinking in terms of the traditional politics of the two parties, but that's no longer applicable. The Repubs were always considered the war party and the Dems were considered the antiwar party. Now there can be a good case made to say that the Dems are the war party.

In my opinion the US is rapidly moving toward that which Bernie Sanders represents. So the question is, if Bernie or a Bernie copycat Dem gets the job, is that saying that the US will continue it's policy of aggression and expansion of US influence?

Fwiw, the US doesn't have a choice now with China poised to overtake the US in world influence. Not military power of course but that's not the biggest issue. You already know my feelings on MAD as the great equalizer.

There's a lot more to say on your question but I need to know that you have an interest in hearing it. Otherwise I'm blowing smoke for nothing.

The Republican Party no longer is seen as representing true values of freedom by a growing part of the fly-over states.
And let's remember that Trump got elected for what was seen as a radical agenda,though in many ways it was just common sense.Of that agenda,Trump implemented next to nothing.Main issues were :
-building the wall and next to zero illegal migration-FAIL.
-support for 2nd Amendment-FAIL on his part.
-''draining the Swamp''-Mega FAIL.

Trump is in a poor position to be re-elected,because his base will be affected by disgust,while the opposition will be galvanised.

The US is getting dis-United by the day.When you're busy with internal issues,it will be difficult to remain hardcore on a global stage.

So the issue here is not how the US will do relative to China and Russia,but how local powers will deal with a not so commited US in the PAcific or EE.

Those who know don't speak
He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

The Republican Party no longer is seen as representing true values of freedom by a growing part of the fly-over states.
And let's remember that Trump got elected for what was seen as a radical agenda,though in many ways it was just common sense.Of that agenda,Trump implemented next to nothing.Main issues were :
-building the wall and next to zero illegal migration-FAIL.
-support for 2nd Amendment-FAIL on his part.
-''draining the Swamp''-Mega FAIL.

Trump is in a poor position to be re-elected,because his base will be affected by disgust,while the opposition will be galvanised.

The US is getting dis-United by the day.When you're busy with internal issues,it will be difficult to remain hardcore on a global stage.

So the issue here is not how the US will do relative to China and Russia,but how local powers will deal with a not so commited US in the PAcific or EE.

Those who know don't speak
He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

To begin to answer your question: A US move to the left in their domestic politics doesn't say anything about the US relations with Russia and China. Or, if you don't agree then make a suggestion on how it could?

I don't have a position to argue on that. I just figured there might be a meeting of minds. It could well be wishful thinking too.

With Russia i might even be contradicting myself. Before the cold war ended the Repubs were anti-Russia and Dems less anti-Russia.

These days that balance has flipped. Whether its solely due to election meddling & collusion etc and therefore only temporary remains to be seen as opposed to ideological which means more enduring differences.

So going by present behaviour, Trump means a less anti-Russia position. Anything else is more anti-Russia ? i don't know.

What would Putin want ? Trump again or something else, that changes the equation from the other end now.

I would love to see some rapprochement between the US & Russia as that simplifies things for others globally. A deeper cleavage however complicates things significantly.

What troubles me is Russia looks at the US with hostile intent. For Russia to become great again is by pushing back at the US just for the sake of it and for no good reason. To do otherwise is to acquiesce to US dominance. If that is the case then reagardless of who is running the US, relations with Russia are going to be a pain.

There's a lot more to say on your question but I need to know that you have an interest in hearing it. Otherwise I'm blowing smoke for nothing.

Go ahead, this is one big hypothetical and will serve to understand the opposition's position. Should they take over. I'm hoping your positions will not be so far off the radical end that i could at least relate to them

First off, the US has already moved left, and the Democratic party is trying to catch up.

I'm thinking the people that remained stagnant without any meaningful wage increases gives more weight to this.

Victimsed by globalisation & threatened by immigration. They will be a clamour for more state spending over military. I can't say whether this has happened under Trump.

As for US being more aggressive i think the appetite for that ended ten years ago. The only place i see Trump sending troops is home and letting other powers fill their shoes or pull more of their weight. US will honour existing commitments but insist on more burden sharing. I don't think this is just Trump. There is a fatigue setting in and i can sense it even with members here so i use that to generalise for the rest of the US.

In my opinion the US is rapidly moving toward that which Bernie Sanders represents.

This is the thing. A shift towards what Bernie represents isn't a return to the days before Trump. Imagine a pendulum at center, Trump comes in and it swings to one end. Now if Bernie comes in, the pendulum does not drop back to centre, instead, now it swings to the opposite end with attendant consequences for one and all.

Trump was tricky to figure out for the rest of the world. Bernie will be no less hard.

The Republican Party no longer is seen as representing true values of freedom by a growing part of the fly-over states.
And let's remember that Trump got elected for what was seen as a radical agenda,though in many ways it was just common sense.Of that agenda,Trump implemented next to nothing.Main issues were :
-building the wall and next to zero illegal migration-FAIL.
-support for 2nd Amendment-FAIL on his part.
-''draining the Swamp''-Mega FAIL.

Because he's not the supreme dictator the opposition paints him our to be. You kinda knew these radical positions were going to face significant push back from the start yet the media coverage throughout was always look at what he wants to do or what he said as if it was some fair accompli just because he uttered or tweeted something.

Trump is in a poor position to be re-elected,because his base will be affected by disgust,while the opposition will be galvanised.

The US is getting dis-United by the day.When you're busy with internal issues,it will be difficult to remain hardcore on a global stage.

So the issue here is not how the US will do relative to China and Russia,but how local powers will deal with a not so commited US in the PAcific or EE.

True but you could say the same applied in Trump's case as well.

US has global commitments. Does anyone want to dare US to renege on them ? not seen it yet.

Russia's move into Ukraine happened during Obama's watch. Or when adults were in charge as some would say : )

[QUOTE=Double Edge;1050007]I don't have a position to argue on that. I just figured there might be a meeting of minds. It could well be wishful thinking too.

A meeting of minds between China/Russia/the US? I think it's possible after Trump.

With Russia i might even be contradicting myself. Before the cold war ended the Repubs were anti-Russia and Dems less anti-Russia.

I assume you're suggesting that the cold war ended with the fall of the S.U., but I agree that your suggestion on which party was pro/con on Russia is correct.

These days that balance has flipped. Whether its solely due to election meddling & collusion etc and therefore only temporary remains to be seen as opposed to ideological which means more enduring differences.

I would suggest that it's temporary.

So going by present behaviour, Trump means a less anti-Russia position. Anything else is more anti-Russia ? i don't know.

Whatever the reasons for that, I'm of the opinion that it's true.

What would Putin want ? Trump again or something else, that changes the equation from the other end now.

Putin likes Trump but Trump is a wild card that can't be replaced. But Putin would obviously want a Bernie or Bernie like president as opposed to a Biden, I would suggest.

I would love to see some rapprochement between the US & Russia as that simplifies things for others globally. A deeper cleavage however complicates things significantly.

No doubt! But I wonder if the US is prepared to peacefully coexist alongside a very powerful China, or a powerful BRICS?

What troubles me is Russia looks at the US with hostile intent. For Russia to become great again is by pushing back at the US just for the sake of it and for no good reason.

And I would say that Russia knows the US is boss dog and would likely want to keep the peace. That is, within reason and on the condition that Russia can defend it's interests. I don't think that Russia wants the Ukraine, Georgia, or the Crimea, it just can't accept the US/Nato having them. And on Venezuela, Russia's interests and China's interests are oil, and that explains all.

To do otherwise is to acquiesce to US dominance. If that is the case then reagardless of who is running the US, relations with Russia are going to be a pain.

Yes. The US doesn't see Russia, it sees the S.U.

Go ahead, this is one big hypothetical and will serve to understand the opposition's position. Should they take over. I'm hoping your positions will not be so far off the radical end that i could at least relate to them

I've forgotten the context and will have to refer back. So later.

I'm thinking the people that remained stagnant without any meaningful wage increases gives more weight to this.

Suffice to say, my opinion is that ordinary Americans are being left behind. Trump promised to change that but Trump lied.

Victimsed by globalisation & threatened by immigration. They will be a clamour for more state spending over military. I can't say whether this has happened under Trump.

I would say you're right. But that really puts the lie to Trump's latest suggestion of less spending on the military. However, what Trump says is often the opposite of what he says the next day or next week.

As for US being more aggressive i think the appetite for that ended ten years ago. The only place i see Trump sending troops is home and letting other powers fill their shoes or pull more of their weight. US will honour existing commitments but insist on more burden sharing. I don't think this is just Trump. There is a fatigue setting in and i can sense it even with members here so i use that to generalise for the rest of the US.

I hear you. I've yet to be able to sense anything from the people on this forum. That is probably because I don't have the luxury of having something different to compare it with.

This is the thing. A shift towards what Bernie represents isn't a return to the days before Trump. Imagine a pendulum at center, Trump comes in and it swings to one end. Now if Bernie comes in, the pendulum does not drop back to centre, instead, now it swings to the opposite end with attendant consequences for one and all.

Yes! Bernie represents something completely foreign to US past political practice. And I think the American people are making the move and Bernie is just filling the need for leadership. But I suspect that some of the others are going to ride on his coattails very soon.

Trump was tricky to figure out for the rest of the world. Bernie will be no less hard.

I don't feel at any loss on figuring Trump out. And my opinion on Bernie or the copycats that rise up to steal his fire, will not be hard to figure. The American people are severely pissed off in my opinion.

Thanks for your very reasoned and intelligent post! If I've left anything unanswered then please do pursue it further.

What troubles me is Russia looks at the US with hostile intent. For Russia to become great again is by pushing back at the US just for the sake of it and for no good reason. To do otherwise is to acquiesce to US dominance. If that is the case then reagardless of who is running the US, relations with Russia are going to be a pain.

I'm of the opinion that Russia is doing nothing much more than standing it's ground. That on the Ukrkraine, Crimea, and Georgia.

Venezuela asks for a more nuanced response from me. It can't be claimed that Russia is standing it's ground in S.America or C. America. I'm suggesting that Russia is standing it's alliance's ground as regards Venezuela's huge oil wealth.